The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact¶
Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M. (2020). The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data. Intelligence.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Dunning-Kruger Effect
- Recent methodological critiques have argued that much of this pattern is reproducible from pure random self-assessment under regression-to-the-mean dynamics, not requiring a specific metacognitive mechanism.
This sourceUses a Glejser heteroskedasticity test and nonlinear regression to argue much of the pattern is a statistical artifact; supports D16-103 (the pattern is partially reproducible from random self-assessment under regression-to-the-mean).
- Recent methodological critiques have argued that much of this pattern is reproducible from pure random self-assessment under regression-to-the-mean dynamics, not requiring a specific metacognitive mechanism.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:8333008aad31 · see in the full table